ESPNs NFL Draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. and Miami Hurricanes football coach Mario Cristobal were in a war of words on Wednesday over coverage of quarterback Cam Ward.The Tennessee Titans selected the one-time Heisman Trophy contender with the No. 1 overall pick of the draft last month. It was the easiest selection the Titans could have made, and it arguably went under-covered as Shedeur Sanders draft slide began as the Jacksonville Jaguars traded up with the Cleveland Browns to select Travis Hunter with the No. 2 pick.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMKiper faced criticism during the three days of the draft as he harped on the surprise of Sanders fall and even had an on-air tiff with Rece Davis once the Browns eventually selected the quarterback in the fifth round.Cristobal said neither he nor offensive coordinator Shannon Dawson spoke to Kiper about Ward, even though he spoke to a "million people," according to The Action Network."Never heard from him," the coach said. "I dont think Ive ever talked to him."Cristobal added that he was not "disappointed" and would only be if Ward was upset. He expressed confidence that Ward just wanted to hear his name called and get to work.FOOTBALL LEGEND LOU HOLTZ CALLS ON CATHOLICS TO 'DEFEND AND ENCOURAGE' POPE LEO XIVKiper fired back at Cristobal."Mario Cristobal claims he spoke to a million people about Cam Ward, yet the one he didnt speak to, being me, had Ward ranked higher (6th on my Big Board) than any of the other draft experts. Interesting isnt it," he wrote on X. "And oh by the way, I didnt speak to Deion about Shedeur either. I need another Orange Crush after this nonsense."It was Kipers first post on the social media platform since April 23, and it appeared Sanders fall still stuck with him.Ward will likely be the starting quarterback once the Titans season begins. Tennessee learned it will take on the Denver Broncos to begin the 2025 season on Sept. 7.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized President Donald Trump after he announced the Department of Defense plans to accept a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, arguing the gift is riddled with both espionage concerns and constitutional questions. But as one expert tells Fox, the latter concern is likely overblown.Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for example, said during an interview on Tuesday that the acquisition of the plane poses "significant espionage and surveillance problems," while Democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., declared, "Trump cannot accept a $400 million flying palace from the royal family of Qatar. Not only is this farcically corrupt, it is blatantly unconstitutional."Reports spread Sunday morning that the Trump administration was expected to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar's royal family, setting off concerns that Trump would personally take ownership of the plane and violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. ABC News reported that Trump would use the jet until the end of his term, when it would be given to his presidential library.Trump confirmed and clarified in a Truth Social post later on Sunday that the Department of Defense was slated to receive the gift, while slamming Democrats for their criticism of the offer.HOUSE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR 'IMMEDIATE' ETHICS PROBE OF QATARI PLANE GIFT TO TRUMP"So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane," Trump wrote. "Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!! MAGA."At the heart of Democrats' concern over the matter is the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.""Trump is literally trying to fly around on a plane from a foreign government while serving as president. Thats a violation of the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause wasnt a suggestion. Its the LAW," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said Monday morning following the announcement.Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that it's questionable if the emoluments clause even applies to the president, as the Constitution typically stipulates when a clause specifically affects a president and cites the title, such as in the impeachment clause."The clause was specifically inserted because of concerns by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention over corruption of our foreign diplomats, especially by the French government.It is questionable whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president since he is not named and the Constitution usually names the president when a provision applies to him.That is why the impeachment clause specifically provides that it applies to the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States. If officers of the U.S. included the president, there would be no need for him to be separately listed," von Spakovsky explained.He added that the president is the individual "whoappointsthe officers whoaresubject to the emoluments clause.""Antonin Scalia, when he worked at the Justice Department, certainly agreed since he issued an opinion in 1974 pointing out that when the Constitution refers to an officer, it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President," he continued.FLASHBACK: DEM CRITICAL OF TRUMP'S QATARI JET GIFT RODE CAMEL IN EXPENSES-PAID 2021 TRIP TO GULF EMIRATEThe jet offer comes after Trump railed against Boeing for pricey government deals to construct a new fleet of Air Force Ones. Even ahead of his first administration, Trump posted on social media in December 2016 that the Boeing "costs are out of control, more than $4 billion" to build the two aircraft.Trump in 2018 awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price agreement to manufacture two new jets. The construction of the jets, however, is not expected to be completed until 2029."We're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One," Trump said during a press conference on drug prices Monday morning. "You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that, compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame."TRUMP CLARIFIES OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT IN DEFENSE OF QATAR'S GIFT"When I first came in, I signed an order to get (the new Air Force One fleet) built," he continued. "I took it over from the Obama administration, they had originally agreed. I got the price down much lower. And then, when the election didn't exactly work out the way that it should have, a lot of work was not done on the plane because a lot of people didn't know they made change orders. That was so stupid, so ridiculous. And it ended up being a total mess, a real mess."White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also brushed off concern over the Qatari royal family donating a Boeing jumbo jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing on Monday there will be no quid pro quo arrangement and that the donation is under legal review to ensure full compliance with the law.Von Spakovsky said that if the plane is in fact a government-to-government gift and not a personal gift to the president the Trump administration is likely in the legal clear to accept the gift."If this gift is being considered as a gift to the government of the U.S., there is no legal issue to consider, since there is no constitutional or legal problem with such a gift.If this is a personal gift to the president, the Justice Department would be weighing the constitutional issue I have raised whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president," he said.Von Spakovsky said such a government-to-government gift "is no different than the thousands of cherry trees gifted to the U.S. by the Japanese government" in 1912 that still draw more than a million tourists to Washington, D.C., each spring.Allies of the president, such as Cruz, said espionage concerns weigh heavily over the planned deal, citing Qatar's ties to terrorist groups."Im not a fan of Qatar. I think they have a really disturbing pattern of funding theocratic lunatics who want to murder us, funding Hamas and Hezbollah. And thats a real problem," Cruz said during an interview Tuesday on CNBC."I also think the plane poses significant espionage and surveillance problems," he added."Well see how this issue plays out, but I certainly have concerns."TRUMP DEFENDS QATAR JUMBO JET OFFER AS TROUBLED BOEING FAILS TO DELIVER NEW AIR FORCE ONE FLEETDemocrats, such as Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois also warned that the plane would come with security issues. Reed, for example, claimed in a statement that using the plane as Air Force One "would pose immense counterintelligence risks by granting a foreign nation potential access to sensitive systems and communications."While Democrats and some Republicans have criticized Trump over the move, other Republican lawmakers have said they are zoned in on legislative matters and are not looped into the plane issue."I actually haven't paid attention to it," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., previously told Fox News Digital. "I'm sorry to be so out of the loop on that. I've just been thinking about Medicaid and about what the House is sending over."QATAR OFFERS TRUMP JUMBO JET TO SERVE AS AIR FORCE ONESen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, another Trump ally, said she didn't know enough about the deal to comment on it when pressed by Fox News Digital. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Eric Schmitt of Missouri also said they did not know details of the plane.Trump is currently in the midst of a four-day trip to the Middle East, including visiting Qatar on Wednesday, where his motorcade was met by dozens of camels, as well as Tesla Cybertrucks in an apparent nod to Department of Government Efficiency official and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.The plane is not expected to be presented to the president nor accepted by Trump during his trip abroad."The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME!" Trump posted to his Truth Social account while in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. "It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive."

Hackers are pretty scary. Amoral, hooded figures with magical computer skills that can break into anything within minutes.At least that is what most of us think of when we hear the term "hacker." It is not exactly a realistic or particularly representative image, but, at the same time, it is not too far off the mark either.What many people do not realize is just how much hackers can learn about you from a data broker file, detailed profiles compiled from your personal information collected and sold by data brokers. This hidden industry fuels much of what hackers use to target individuals today.Join The FREE CyberGuy Report: Get my expert tech tips, critical security alerts, and exclusive deals plus instant access to myfree Ultimate Scam Survival Guide when you sign up!When most people hear the term "data broker," on the other hand, they draw a blank. Is it a person or company that buys and sells data? Basically, yes. Data brokers collect, sort, analyze, package and sell access to personal information. Whose personal information? Anyone's and everyone's, including yours.THINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR DATA YOURSELF? HERES WHY YOURE PROBABLY WRONGTHINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR OWN DATA? WHY ITS HARDER THAN YOU THINKHere is a list of possible data points you, random companies, your worst enemy, your neighbors and, yes, hackers can find in a data broker file:Quite the list, is it not? It is not exhaustive; there is more that data brokers collect and more yet that they and their customers can infer from data points like these. What exactly a given data broker has will depend on which category it falls into.HACKERS CLAIM MASSIVE BREACH OF COMPANY THAT TRACKS AND SELLS AMERICANS' LOCATION DATAHOW TO GET RID OF ROBOCALLS WITH APPS AND DATA REMOVAL SERVICESThe most visible data brokers are commonly known as people search sites or people finder sites. These are the sites that show up when you Google yourself, or a hacker Googles you. They are just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are other data brokers that do not bother indexing individual profiles with search engines, preferring instead to deal with other companies and even governments directly. These are the other major types of data brokers, in addition to people search sites:Marketing data brokers focus more on your browsing habits, past purchases and interests. They are responsible for "personalized marketing" as well as helping other companies target you with those surprisingly relevant ads you see online.Recruitment data brokers collect and process personal information to offer background screening services to organizations evaluating job candidates or performing background checks before making an offer. Unfortunately, although illegal, there is nothing actually stopping unscrupulous employers from using the much less regulated and reliable people search sites for the same purposes.Risk mitigation brokers aggregate a variety of background, criminal, property and other information to provide assessment reports to various investment and business companies. The information they collect is aimed at helping such companies manage risk in taking on new business.Financial information brokers collect various personal finance and background information for credit companies and banks to calculate your credit score and may influence your eligibility to get loans and lines of credit.Health information data brokers collect information about your general health and sell it to companies in healthcare and related fields. This information can be used to target you with health product ads and even set your insurance premiums.Hackers are most likely to use people search sites, though; they are easily accessible, eminently searchable, relatively cheap (with trial offers for as little as a dollar) and do not ask any questions. Other data brokers may also sell personal information to hackers, but they tend to sell profiles in bulk.DATA REMOVAL DOES WHAT VPNS DONT: HERES WHY YOU NEED BOTHIt is perfectly normal to want no part in any of this. Unfortunately, there is no federal law on the books in the U.S. that would either prevent this kind of data trade or give you an easy, legally enforced way to opt out.The good news is that, thanks to an incomplete patchwork of state laws, personal information removal services can approach hundreds of individual data brokers on your behalf with legally binding data-removal requests.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice.They arent cheap and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites.Its what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet.By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.Check out my top picks for data removal services here.It is easy to feel overwhelmed when you realize just how much of your personal information is out there, and how many different players are collecting, selling and using it. But knowing how data brokers operate is the first step to taking back control. Whether it is people search sites or the less visible brokers working behind the scenes, your data is valuable, and you deserve to know who has it and what they are doing with it. The good news is, there are tools and services out there that can help you clean up your digital footprint and protect your privacy. So, do not just sit back and hope for the best take action and make your data work for you, not against you.In your opinion, what should be done to give people more control over their data? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading toCyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.All rights reserved.

Human remains were found Wednesday in an upscale Rhode Island beach neighborhood as concerns about a potential serial killer in New England continue to plague the region.A human leg bone was reportedly found on a beach path off Everett Avenue in Watch Hill, a wealthy coastal enclave in the town of Westerly, according to WJAR. The remains were found just a stone's throw from pop megastar Taylor Swift's beachside mansion in the town.The remains were transferred to the Rhode Island Medical Examiner's Office for further investigation.NEW ENGLAND INVESTIGATORS 'NOT RULING OUT ANYTHING' AMID SERIAL KILLER FEARS: FORMER HOMICIDE DETECTIVEWJAR reported that foul play is not suspected.The Westerly Police Department declined to comment. The Rhode Island State Police did not return a comment request.SIGN UP TO GET THE TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTERThe discovery marks the 13th body or set of remains that have been discovered in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts since the beginning of March, sparking online chatter about a potential serial killer.Five bodies have been found in Massachusetts, five in Connecticut and now three in Rhode Island.Two of the bodies were found in the small town of Taunton, Massachusetts.FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON XA former FBI agent told Fox News Digital earlier this month that authorities in the region have not released enough information to the public in order to quash the rumors."From what I've seen or heard, first and foremost, not enough is being put out there, so we'll continue to create that serial killer idea," Scott Duffey said.However, Duffey said he does not believe there is sufficient evidence to merit serial killer claims. GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB"But at the same time, nothing has been said to make any type of connection [between victims]," he said. "And so that's what leads me down to let law enforcement continue to answer the questions that they need to answer. But nothing that I have seen would arise to a serial killer [being] responsible for any or most of these people who have been found."One man, Donald Coffel, 68, was arrested in connection with the murder of one of the victims, Suzanne Wormser of Groton, Connecticut.CT POLICE QUASH NEW ENGLAND SERIAL KILLER RUMORS, ARREST MAN AFTER WOMAN FOUND DISMEMBERED IN SUITCASEWormser was Coffel's roommate, and she was found dismembered and stuffed into a suitcase in March, stemming from what police said was an argument over crack cocaine.Friday, Coffel died in the Corrigan Correctional Center, according to NBC Connecticut. At the time of his arrest, Coffel reportedly told police that he was in a lot of pain from cancer.Fox News' Audrey Conklin contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Thursday in a challenge to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, a case that could more broadly call into question the powers of lower courts to block executive branch actions. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate their view that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts Article III powers under the Constitution, noting that the injunctions "transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority," and "create a host of practical problems."Universal injunctions "require judges to make rushed, high stakes, low information decisions," he said. "They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere," and "invert," in the administrations view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments."During a five-minute rebuttal period, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned Sauer on what authorities the courts, under their argument, would have in this scenario an important line of questioning likely to be revisited again.100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND 'TEFLON DON': TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT"Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to have your argument," she said."If that's true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn't have that power," she noted later.Justices on the high court agreed in April to hear the case, which centers on three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year blocking Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. The order reinterprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at time of birth. Trump's action remains on hold nationwide pending Supreme Court intervention.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in March to review the case, arguing that the three lower courts in question had exceeded their authority in issuing the universal injunctions.APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT "These injunctions exceed the district courts authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the Presidents executive power under Article II," U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told justices on the high court in a filing before arguments began. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."Plaintiffs told the high court that there is no reason for them to intervene here, objecting both to the executive order in question, which one lawyer described in a brief as "citizenship stripping," as well as any effort to block the nationwide injunctions. The lower court orders "preserve the status quo that has existed for more than a century, and the federal government suffers no harm, much less irreparable harm, by continuing to follow long-settled laws while the appeals proceed," Nicholas Brown, the Attorney General of Washington state, said in its filing.Oral arguments are expected to focus not only on the lower courts that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order but also on whether federal judges can issue universal injunctions halting executive actions nationwide. The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the practice, though several conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, have raised concerns. A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis.The consolidated cases before the court are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington,and Trump v. New Jersey.Its unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks or even days.

A group of Democratic voters told New York Times Opinion that they were disappointed in their party, which some called "inept" and "useless.""You need to go back to the drawing board and reconnect with common people and talk about how you can work toward helping people get what they need. We know how bad it is," Terrell of Texas told the Times, before referring to President Donald Trump by saying, "No one cares how villainous he is."The Democratic Party's favorability ratings are at record lows as its leadership grapples with how to respond after Trump's win in 2024."Focusing on Trump and how bad of a threat he was didnt work. And I think they were too focused on 2020 because it worked in 2020. But he was already in power. Moving forward, they need to do what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have done the Fight Oligarchy tour, reconnect with people, find out what the average American wants and then run with that platform through the midterms," Ariel of Indiana told the outlet.DEMOCRATS' IDENTITY CRISIS: YOUTH REVOLT ROCKS PARTY AFTER TRUMP COMEBACKThe group of voters were also very critical of Trump's presidency so far.Ashley, a young voter from New York, told the opinion writers that it was hard to even defend the Democrats anymore."Its so hard to even defend Democrats anymore because they dont stand on their convictions enough. Especially now over the last 100 days, its really tiring. And I think people just need a sense of hope. And Im not getting that. We just need to know that you are on our side, because it doesnt feel like it," she said.When asked what fighting Trump might look like, Laura, a mail carrier from Missouri, said, "I dont think fighting Trump is the entire answer. But weve got to do something to bring the two parties together to talk without shouting, because its just not going to work any other way. Weve got to talk. And thats hard."VAN JONES WARNS DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS 'SCREWED,' ADDING THEY 'DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO'The opinion writers also asked about Democratic leaders, specifically Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.Two young Democratic voters told the writers that they were frustrated with both of them."Im upset with Jeffries because I saw an interview where he said: We cant really do anything. Its disappointing to hear that. And when Schumer caved on the budget proposal that he switched up on and essentially lectured people on how it should have been done and trying to defend himself, it just feels like theyre not listening and theyre trying to tell people how things should be done and theyre doing it right and We know whats going on, and you dont," Ariel, 23, said.Ashley, 19, said she preferred Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, because the lawmaker wasn't afraid to speak her mind."It seems like theyre running out the same defense, even though they see that its not working. Youre getting killed, but youre still running the same game. Youre still using the same political tactics. You gave a grand speech, and you broke a record. Its all performative. What are you doing to really reconnect with people, to galvanize and pull people together?CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURECLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPSeveral of the Democratic voters criticized former President Biden for running for re-election, and said Harris didn't have enough time to campaign.

Fox News' "Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world.IN TODAYS NEWSLETTER:-American hostage Edan Alexander freed by Hamas after more than 580 days- Swing state bans campus encampments amid crackdown on anti-Israel agitators- Legal expert on Trump's clash with Harvard: 'Accountability must be enforced'TOP STORY: Hamas released its last living American hostage Monday, after he spent more than 580 days in captivity inside the Gaza Strip. Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, grew up in Tenafly, N.J. He moved to Israel at 18 to volunteer for military service in the IDFs Golani Brigade. He was kidnapped on the morning of Oct. 7, 2023. President Donald Trump, following Alexander's release, wrote on Truth Social "Congratulations to his wonderful parents, family, and friends!"VIDEO:Yael Alexander talks to her son for first time since his release after nearly 600 days as a Hamas captive. WATCH HERE:CAMPUS CRACKDOWN: A Democrat governor in a key swing state signed a bill that outlaws encampments on public university campuses as protests continue to erupt at schools across the United States. Those who set up encampments may be held liable for damages to campuses, and those who do not leave are subject to trespassing charges.HARD LINE ON HARVARD: The Trump administration garnered mixed reactions after announcing it would stop all future grant funding for Harvard University unless the school complied with its demands. Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard University President Alan Garber ripping the university, accusing it of "engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law." Read what Yael Lerman, the director of the StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department, had to say.WAVING THE FLAG: Officials in one East Coast city have accepted a request to fly the Palestinian flag Friday at City Hall in the state's capital. City officials emphasized that no American flags are being displaced by the display, adding there have been several other flags raised over the government office in the past.GUEST EDITORIAL: Sylvia Cunio, whose two sons, David and Ariel, are still held captive by Hamas, pleas for their freedom. "The return of hostages is not political or military it's a moral imperative," she writes. "There will be time to fight Hamas, more campaigns ahead. But the lives of Ariel, David and all the hostages cannot wait. Every day diminishes their chances of survival."QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "Every night, I have the same dream. I see my sons in a hospital bed. I run to them, embracing them, breathing in their scent, kissing them for all they've endured." Sylvia Cunio, mother of two men still held hostage by Hamas.- Looking for more on this topic?Find moreantisemitism coveragefrom Fox Newshere.-Did someone forward you this email?Subscribe toadditional newslettersfrom Fox Newshere.

ESPNs NFL Draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. and Miami Hurricanes football coach Mario Cristobal were in a war of words on Wednesday over coverage of quarterback Cam Ward.The Tennessee Titans selected the one-time Heisman Trophy contender with the No. 1 overall pick of the draft last month. It was the easiest selection the Titans could have made, and it arguably went under-covered as Shedeur Sanders draft slide began as the Jacksonville Jaguars traded up with the Cleveland Browns to select Travis Hunter with the No. 2 pick.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMKiper faced criticism during the three days of the draft as he harped on the surprise of Sanders fall and even had an on-air tiff with Rece Davis once the Browns eventually selected the quarterback in the fifth round.Cristobal said neither he nor offensive coordinator Shannon Dawson spoke to Kiper about Ward, even though he spoke to a "million people," according to The Action Network."Never heard from him," the coach said. "I dont think Ive ever talked to him."Cristobal added that he was not "disappointed" and would only be if Ward was upset. He expressed confidence that Ward just wanted to hear his name called and get to work.FOOTBALL LEGEND LOU HOLTZ CALLS ON CATHOLICS TO 'DEFEND AND ENCOURAGE' POPE LEO XIVKiper fired back at Cristobal."Mario Cristobal claims he spoke to a million people about Cam Ward, yet the one he didnt speak to, being me, had Ward ranked higher (6th on my Big Board) than any of the other draft experts. Interesting isnt it," he wrote on X. "And oh by the way, I didnt speak to Deion about Shedeur either. I need another Orange Crush after this nonsense."It was Kipers first post on the social media platform since April 23, and it appeared Sanders fall still stuck with him.Ward will likely be the starting quarterback once the Titans season begins. Tennessee learned it will take on the Denver Broncos to begin the 2025 season on Sept. 7.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized President Donald Trump after he announced the Department of Defense plans to accept a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, arguing the gift is riddled with both espionage concerns and constitutional questions. But as one expert tells Fox, the latter concern is likely overblown.Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for example, said during an interview on Tuesday that the acquisition of the plane poses "significant espionage and surveillance problems," while Democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., declared, "Trump cannot accept a $400 million flying palace from the royal family of Qatar. Not only is this farcically corrupt, it is blatantly unconstitutional."Reports spread Sunday morning that the Trump administration was expected to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar's royal family, setting off concerns that Trump would personally take ownership of the plane and violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. ABC News reported that Trump would use the jet until the end of his term, when it would be given to his presidential library.Trump confirmed and clarified in a Truth Social post later on Sunday that the Department of Defense was slated to receive the gift, while slamming Democrats for their criticism of the offer.HOUSE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR 'IMMEDIATE' ETHICS PROBE OF QATARI PLANE GIFT TO TRUMP"So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane," Trump wrote. "Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!! MAGA."At the heart of Democrats' concern over the matter is the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.""Trump is literally trying to fly around on a plane from a foreign government while serving as president. Thats a violation of the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause wasnt a suggestion. Its the LAW," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said Monday morning following the announcement.Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that it's questionable if the emoluments clause even applies to the president, as the Constitution typically stipulates when a clause specifically affects a president and cites the title, such as in the impeachment clause."The clause was specifically inserted because of concerns by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention over corruption of our foreign diplomats, especially by the French government.It is questionable whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president since he is not named and the Constitution usually names the president when a provision applies to him.That is why the impeachment clause specifically provides that it applies to the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States. If officers of the U.S. included the president, there would be no need for him to be separately listed," von Spakovsky explained.He added that the president is the individual "whoappointsthe officers whoaresubject to the emoluments clause.""Antonin Scalia, when he worked at the Justice Department, certainly agreed since he issued an opinion in 1974 pointing out that when the Constitution refers to an officer, it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President," he continued.FLASHBACK: DEM CRITICAL OF TRUMP'S QATARI JET GIFT RODE CAMEL IN EXPENSES-PAID 2021 TRIP TO GULF EMIRATEThe jet offer comes after Trump railed against Boeing for pricey government deals to construct a new fleet of Air Force Ones. Even ahead of his first administration, Trump posted on social media in December 2016 that the Boeing "costs are out of control, more than $4 billion" to build the two aircraft.Trump in 2018 awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price agreement to manufacture two new jets. The construction of the jets, however, is not expected to be completed until 2029."We're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One," Trump said during a press conference on drug prices Monday morning. "You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that, compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame."TRUMP CLARIFIES OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT IN DEFENSE OF QATAR'S GIFT"When I first came in, I signed an order to get (the new Air Force One fleet) built," he continued. "I took it over from the Obama administration, they had originally agreed. I got the price down much lower. And then, when the election didn't exactly work out the way that it should have, a lot of work was not done on the plane because a lot of people didn't know they made change orders. That was so stupid, so ridiculous. And it ended up being a total mess, a real mess."White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also brushed off concern over the Qatari royal family donating a Boeing jumbo jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing on Monday there will be no quid pro quo arrangement and that the donation is under legal review to ensure full compliance with the law.Von Spakovsky said that if the plane is in fact a government-to-government gift and not a personal gift to the president the Trump administration is likely in the legal clear to accept the gift."If this gift is being considered as a gift to the government of the U.S., there is no legal issue to consider, since there is no constitutional or legal problem with such a gift.If this is a personal gift to the president, the Justice Department would be weighing the constitutional issue I have raised whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president," he said.Von Spakovsky said such a government-to-government gift "is no different than the thousands of cherry trees gifted to the U.S. by the Japanese government" in 1912 that still draw more than a million tourists to Washington, D.C., each spring.Allies of the president, such as Cruz, said espionage concerns weigh heavily over the planned deal, citing Qatar's ties to terrorist groups."Im not a fan of Qatar. I think they have a really disturbing pattern of funding theocratic lunatics who want to murder us, funding Hamas and Hezbollah. And thats a real problem," Cruz said during an interview Tuesday on CNBC."I also think the plane poses significant espionage and surveillance problems," he added."Well see how this issue plays out, but I certainly have concerns."TRUMP DEFENDS QATAR JUMBO JET OFFER AS TROUBLED BOEING FAILS TO DELIVER NEW AIR FORCE ONE FLEETDemocrats, such as Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois also warned that the plane would come with security issues. Reed, for example, claimed in a statement that using the plane as Air Force One "would pose immense counterintelligence risks by granting a foreign nation potential access to sensitive systems and communications."While Democrats and some Republicans have criticized Trump over the move, other Republican lawmakers have said they are zoned in on legislative matters and are not looped into the plane issue."I actually haven't paid attention to it," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., previously told Fox News Digital. "I'm sorry to be so out of the loop on that. I've just been thinking about Medicaid and about what the House is sending over."QATAR OFFERS TRUMP JUMBO JET TO SERVE AS AIR FORCE ONESen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, another Trump ally, said she didn't know enough about the deal to comment on it when pressed by Fox News Digital. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Eric Schmitt of Missouri also said they did not know details of the plane.Trump is currently in the midst of a four-day trip to the Middle East, including visiting Qatar on Wednesday, where his motorcade was met by dozens of camels, as well as Tesla Cybertrucks in an apparent nod to Department of Government Efficiency official and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.The plane is not expected to be presented to the president nor accepted by Trump during his trip abroad."The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME!" Trump posted to his Truth Social account while in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. "It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive."

Hackers are pretty scary. Amoral, hooded figures with magical computer skills that can break into anything within minutes.At least that is what most of us think of when we hear the term "hacker." It is not exactly a realistic or particularly representative image, but, at the same time, it is not too far off the mark either.What many people do not realize is just how much hackers can learn about you from a data broker file, detailed profiles compiled from your personal information collected and sold by data brokers. This hidden industry fuels much of what hackers use to target individuals today.Join The FREE CyberGuy Report: Get my expert tech tips, critical security alerts, and exclusive deals plus instant access to myfree Ultimate Scam Survival Guide when you sign up!When most people hear the term "data broker," on the other hand, they draw a blank. Is it a person or company that buys and sells data? Basically, yes. Data brokers collect, sort, analyze, package and sell access to personal information. Whose personal information? Anyone's and everyone's, including yours.THINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR DATA YOURSELF? HERES WHY YOURE PROBABLY WRONGTHINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR OWN DATA? WHY ITS HARDER THAN YOU THINKHere is a list of possible data points you, random companies, your worst enemy, your neighbors and, yes, hackers can find in a data broker file:Quite the list, is it not? It is not exhaustive; there is more that data brokers collect and more yet that they and their customers can infer from data points like these. What exactly a given data broker has will depend on which category it falls into.HACKERS CLAIM MASSIVE BREACH OF COMPANY THAT TRACKS AND SELLS AMERICANS' LOCATION DATAHOW TO GET RID OF ROBOCALLS WITH APPS AND DATA REMOVAL SERVICESThe most visible data brokers are commonly known as people search sites or people finder sites. These are the sites that show up when you Google yourself, or a hacker Googles you. They are just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are other data brokers that do not bother indexing individual profiles with search engines, preferring instead to deal with other companies and even governments directly. These are the other major types of data brokers, in addition to people search sites:Marketing data brokers focus more on your browsing habits, past purchases and interests. They are responsible for "personalized marketing" as well as helping other companies target you with those surprisingly relevant ads you see online.Recruitment data brokers collect and process personal information to offer background screening services to organizations evaluating job candidates or performing background checks before making an offer. Unfortunately, although illegal, there is nothing actually stopping unscrupulous employers from using the much less regulated and reliable people search sites for the same purposes.Risk mitigation brokers aggregate a variety of background, criminal, property and other information to provide assessment reports to various investment and business companies. The information they collect is aimed at helping such companies manage risk in taking on new business.Financial information brokers collect various personal finance and background information for credit companies and banks to calculate your credit score and may influence your eligibility to get loans and lines of credit.Health information data brokers collect information about your general health and sell it to companies in healthcare and related fields. This information can be used to target you with health product ads and even set your insurance premiums.Hackers are most likely to use people search sites, though; they are easily accessible, eminently searchable, relatively cheap (with trial offers for as little as a dollar) and do not ask any questions. Other data brokers may also sell personal information to hackers, but they tend to sell profiles in bulk.DATA REMOVAL DOES WHAT VPNS DONT: HERES WHY YOU NEED BOTHIt is perfectly normal to want no part in any of this. Unfortunately, there is no federal law on the books in the U.S. that would either prevent this kind of data trade or give you an easy, legally enforced way to opt out.The good news is that, thanks to an incomplete patchwork of state laws, personal information removal services can approach hundreds of individual data brokers on your behalf with legally binding data-removal requests.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice.They arent cheap and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites.Its what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet.By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.Check out my top picks for data removal services here.It is easy to feel overwhelmed when you realize just how much of your personal information is out there, and how many different players are collecting, selling and using it. But knowing how data brokers operate is the first step to taking back control. Whether it is people search sites or the less visible brokers working behind the scenes, your data is valuable, and you deserve to know who has it and what they are doing with it. The good news is, there are tools and services out there that can help you clean up your digital footprint and protect your privacy. So, do not just sit back and hope for the best take action and make your data work for you, not against you.In your opinion, what should be done to give people more control over their data? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading toCyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.All rights reserved.